超级军网科普一下美国的拨款政治吧
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/29 12:27:31
近来SpaceX很热，就从它说起。摆在SpaceX前面的有两个相当大的风险，一个是火箭出事，航天本身就是高危行业，出事影响太大了，这个很多人都提到了。另外一个很少有人讲，就是政治因素，这种基本靠政府发钱外包的项目受政治影响太大了，一朝天子一朝臣，比如克林顿的下一代汽车计划布什一上台就废止－－克林顿的计划是百公里耗油3升，废止的结果是美国三大汽车公司没几年就纷纷倒在高油价上面；类似的，布什的氢燃料计划和战神计划奥巴马上来就给停了；奥巴马力推的新能源计划，现在出了Solyndra的丑闻以后也快不了了之了。还有那个民主党大佬肯尼迪参议员力推的F35第二发动机计划F136，肯尼迪死了以后就完蛋了。
而且就算SpaceX把这些风险都规避了，还有个问题－－就是国家的拨款不是那么好拿的，美国政治里有个概念叫earmark，这个词可跟耳朵无关，但这东西可要命了。简单的解释大概就是议案要想从此过留下买路钱的意思，项目国家拨款需要议员批准，议员就会以在本州生产部分零件给本州创造就业作为交换，这样议员下次选举不就有了政绩嘛－－听起来和中国的跑“部”“钱”进差不多，议员就充当驻京办的角色。用国家的钱方便议员连任，这有腐败的嫌疑啊，可没办法，美国政治就是这么运作的，这一切是合法滴，前面说的那个F136项目就是肯尼迪参议员的巨型earmark，要不人家咋叫大佬呢，再比如F22的分承包商为啥会分布在45个州，就是各州议员不懈努力的结果。既然项目不是以价格取胜，通过这么一番政治交换，价格就飞上去了，所以现在美国的大项目比如军工啊航天啊别看都是外包给私企，一个一个却都是天价。
回到SpaceX，NASA现在这么搞无非就是想绕过这些官僚的干扰，直接把项目给报价最便宜的公司，不过现在项目小，可能人家议员们还看不上，以后项目做大了，难免议员们就贴上来了－－上百亿的大项目，想拿本州的同意票，那就分点零件给我们州生产吧，所以以后价格飞涨是必须滴，除非能彻底禁止earmark。这个可不可能呢？少数有远见的议员比如麦肯恩就对earmark深恶痛绝，几年前earmark都不署名，完全是秘密的利益交换，太容易搞腐败了，后来在这些有远见的议员的推动下，earmark开始署名了，这个earmark是哪个议员整出来的都公之于众，结果没想到的是，这反而大大加剧了议员们加earmark的热情－－这下本州人民可以看到了，这都是本议员为大家争的利益啊⋯⋯后来麦肯恩08年选举中取消earmark就是他的一大主张，可这种拿国家的钱肥自己州的事人民其实都是很支持滴，所以美国人民宁愿选个毛头小伙也不选麦肯恩，所以看起来禁止earmark遥遥无期啦。近来SpaceX很热，就从它说起。摆在SpaceX前面的有两个相当大的风险，一个是火箭出事，航天本身就是高危行业，出事影响太大了，这个很多人都提到了。另外一个很少有人讲，就是政治因素，这种基本靠政府发钱外包的项目受政治影响太大了，一朝天子一朝臣，比如克林顿的下一代汽车计划布什一上台就废止－－克林顿的计划是百公里耗油3升，废止的结果是美国三大汽车公司没几年就纷纷倒在高油价上面；类似的，布什的氢燃料计划和战神计划奥巴马上来就给停了；奥巴马力推的新能源计划，现在出了Solyndra的丑闻以后也快不了了之了。还有那个民主党大佬肯尼迪参议员力推的F35第二发动机计划F136，肯尼迪死了以后就完蛋了。
而且就算SpaceX把这些风险都规避了，还有个问题－－就是国家的拨款不是那么好拿的，美国政治里有个概念叫earmark，这个词可跟耳朵无关，但这东西可要命了。简单的解释大概就是议案要想从此过留下买路钱的意思，项目国家拨款需要议员批准，议员就会以在本州生产部分零件给本州创造就业作为交换，这样议员下次选举不就有了政绩嘛－－听起来和中国的跑“部”“钱”进差不多，议员就充当驻京办的角色。用国家的钱方便议员连任，这有腐败的嫌疑啊，可没办法，美国政治就是这么运作的，这一切是合法滴，前面说的那个F136项目就是肯尼迪参议员的巨型earmark，要不人家咋叫大佬呢，再比如F22的分承包商为啥会分布在45个州，就是各州议员不懈努力的结果。既然项目不是以价格取胜，通过这么一番政治交换，价格就飞上去了，所以现在美国的大项目比如军工啊航天啊别看都是外包给私企，一个一个却都是天价。
回到SpaceX，NASA现在这么搞无非就是想绕过这些官僚的干扰，直接把项目给报价最便宜的公司，不过现在项目小，可能人家议员们还看不上，以后项目做大了，难免议员们就贴上来了－－上百亿的大项目，想拿本州的同意票，那就分点零件给我们州生产吧，所以以后价格飞涨是必须滴，除非能彻底禁止earmark。这个可不可能呢？少数有远见的议员比如麦肯恩就对earmark深恶痛绝，几年前earmark都不署名，完全是秘密的利益交换，太容易搞腐败了，后来在这些有远见的议员的推动下，earmark开始署名了，这个earmark是哪个议员整出来的都公之于众，结果没想到的是，这反而大大加剧了议员们加earmark的热情－－这下本州人民可以看到了，这都是本议员为大家争的利益啊⋯⋯后来麦肯恩08年选举中取消earmark就是他的一大主张，可这种拿国家的钱肥自己州的事人民其实都是很支持滴，所以美国人民宁愿选个毛头小伙也不选麦肯恩，所以看起来禁止earmark遥遥无期啦。
而且就算SpaceX把这些风险都规避了，还有个问题－－就是国家的拨款不是那么好拿的，美国政治里有个概念叫earmark，这个词可跟耳朵无关，但这东西可要命了。简单的解释大概就是议案要想从此过留下买路钱的意思，项目国家拨款需要议员批准，议员就会以在本州生产部分零件给本州创造就业作为交换，这样议员下次选举不就有了政绩嘛－－听起来和中国的跑“部”“钱”进差不多，议员就充当驻京办的角色。用国家的钱方便议员连任，这有腐败的嫌疑啊，可没办法，美国政治就是这么运作的，这一切是合法滴，前面说的那个F136项目就是肯尼迪参议员的巨型earmark，要不人家咋叫大佬呢，再比如F22的分承包商为啥会分布在45个州，就是各州议员不懈努力的结果。既然项目不是以价格取胜，通过这么一番政治交换，价格就飞上去了，所以现在美国的大项目比如军工啊航天啊别看都是外包给私企，一个一个却都是天价。
回到SpaceX，NASA现在这么搞无非就是想绕过这些官僚的干扰，直接把项目给报价最便宜的公司，不过现在项目小，可能人家议员们还看不上，以后项目做大了，难免议员们就贴上来了－－上百亿的大项目，想拿本州的同意票，那就分点零件给我们州生产吧，所以以后价格飞涨是必须滴，除非能彻底禁止earmark。这个可不可能呢？少数有远见的议员比如麦肯恩就对earmark深恶痛绝，几年前earmark都不署名，完全是秘密的利益交换，太容易搞腐败了，后来在这些有远见的议员的推动下，earmark开始署名了，这个earmark是哪个议员整出来的都公之于众，结果没想到的是，这反而大大加剧了议员们加earmark的热情－－这下本州人民可以看到了，这都是本议员为大家争的利益啊⋯⋯后来麦肯恩08年选举中取消earmark就是他的一大主张，可这种拿国家的钱肥自己州的事人民其实都是很支持滴，所以美国人民宁愿选个毛头小伙也不选麦肯恩，所以看起来禁止earmark遥遥无期啦。近来SpaceX很热，就从它说起。摆在SpaceX前面的有两个相当大的风险，一个是火箭出事，航天本身就是高危行业，出事影响太大了，这个很多人都提到了。另外一个很少有人讲，就是政治因素，这种基本靠政府发钱外包的项目受政治影响太大了，一朝天子一朝臣，比如克林顿的下一代汽车计划布什一上台就废止－－克林顿的计划是百公里耗油3升，废止的结果是美国三大汽车公司没几年就纷纷倒在高油价上面；类似的，布什的氢燃料计划和战神计划奥巴马上来就给停了；奥巴马力推的新能源计划，现在出了Solyndra的丑闻以后也快不了了之了。还有那个民主党大佬肯尼迪参议员力推的F35第二发动机计划F136，肯尼迪死了以后就完蛋了。
而且就算SpaceX把这些风险都规避了，还有个问题－－就是国家的拨款不是那么好拿的，美国政治里有个概念叫earmark，这个词可跟耳朵无关，但这东西可要命了。简单的解释大概就是议案要想从此过留下买路钱的意思，项目国家拨款需要议员批准，议员就会以在本州生产部分零件给本州创造就业作为交换，这样议员下次选举不就有了政绩嘛－－听起来和中国的跑“部”“钱”进差不多，议员就充当驻京办的角色。用国家的钱方便议员连任，这有腐败的嫌疑啊，可没办法，美国政治就是这么运作的，这一切是合法滴，前面说的那个F136项目就是肯尼迪参议员的巨型earmark，要不人家咋叫大佬呢，再比如F22的分承包商为啥会分布在45个州，就是各州议员不懈努力的结果。既然项目不是以价格取胜，通过这么一番政治交换，价格就飞上去了，所以现在美国的大项目比如军工啊航天啊别看都是外包给私企，一个一个却都是天价。
回到SpaceX，NASA现在这么搞无非就是想绕过这些官僚的干扰，直接把项目给报价最便宜的公司，不过现在项目小，可能人家议员们还看不上，以后项目做大了，难免议员们就贴上来了－－上百亿的大项目，想拿本州的同意票，那就分点零件给我们州生产吧，所以以后价格飞涨是必须滴，除非能彻底禁止earmark。这个可不可能呢？少数有远见的议员比如麦肯恩就对earmark深恶痛绝，几年前earmark都不署名，完全是秘密的利益交换，太容易搞腐败了，后来在这些有远见的议员的推动下，earmark开始署名了，这个earmark是哪个议员整出来的都公之于众，结果没想到的是，这反而大大加剧了议员们加earmark的热情－－这下本州人民可以看到了，这都是本议员为大家争的利益啊⋯⋯后来麦肯恩08年选举中取消earmark就是他的一大主张，可这种拿国家的钱肥自己州的事人民其实都是很支持滴，所以美国人民宁愿选个毛头小伙也不选麦肯恩，所以看起来禁止earmark遥遥无期啦。
头一次听说
原来如此
现在，双方看似要达成一致意见。6月5日，监管NASA的众议院拨款分委会主席、共和党人弗兰克•沃尔夫表示，该计划将至少会投资两家公司——也可能向第三家公司部分投资。根据他的说法，要从四家公司中筛选。
这项协议能让NASA可以更严格地监管参与竞标研制火箭与太空舱的公司，还能让NASA在发现某公司能力与金融状况存在问题时有更多余地终止合同。
对于NASA和商业航天界而言，这种调和出现在有趣的时间内。NASA计划在今年夏季签署下一轮太空出租车合同。上周，SpaceX公司首度使用商业飞行器前往国际空间站并安全返回，创造了历史。
http://www.cssar.ac.cn/kxcb/kpwz ... 120608_3595018.html
这项协议能让NASA可以更严格地监管参与竞标研制火箭与太空舱的公司，还能让NASA在发现某公司能力与金融状况存在问题时有更多余地终止合同。
对于NASA和商业航天界而言，这种调和出现在有趣的时间内。NASA计划在今年夏季签署下一轮太空出租车合同。上周，SpaceX公司首度使用商业飞行器前往国际空间站并安全返回，创造了历史。
http://www.cssar.ac.cn/kxcb/kpwz ... 120608_3595018.html
各个国家都有难处
谢谢科普，学到知识啦。权力寻租现象中外皆同啊，无关体制。
最近这些年美国的政府采购项目价格一个比一个离谱，真相就是这样的？
2012年2月，白宫为NASA商业乘员项目申请8.3亿美元，该项目特点是批准私人火箭与航天器的研制，运送宇航员往返国际太空站。
NASA 2012财年的商业乘员申请经费被国会削减一半，导致乘员运输服务的起始时间推迟1年，直到2017年。官员警告2013财年8.3亿美元遭遇另一次重大削减将导致再度延迟。（中国航天系统科学与工程研究院 许红英 陈菲）
http://www.dsti.net/Information/News/75179
NASA 2012财年的商业乘员申请经费被国会削减一半，导致乘员运输服务的起始时间推迟1年，直到2017年。官员警告2013财年8.3亿美元遭遇另一次重大削减将导致再度延迟。（中国航天系统科学与工程研究院 许红英 陈菲）
http://www.dsti.net/Information/News/75179
这种机制是追求政绩回报社会（选民）的必然啊！专制=专门制造，民主制=人人有份，最理想的模式是创造财富时用专制，分配财富时用民主。
真是不容易啊。
菲丝 发表于 2012-6-21 08:16 ![]()
这种机制是追求政绩回报社会（选民）的必然啊！专制=专门制造，民主制=人人有份，最理想的模式是创造财富时 ...
没那么简单，earmark的能力跟议员的权势有关，有人的地方就有江湖，总会出现一些呼风唤雨的大佬，而且议院里有各种委员会，负责财政啊军工啊的委员和负责科技太空的委员权势自然差老了。象肯尼迪参议员这种大佬，上百亿的项目都可以往自己家里搬，而新选上的议员就没这种好事了。所以就是个赤裸裸的利益交换的问题，“民主分配”嘛自然是谈不上滴。
这种机制是追求政绩回报社会（选民）的必然啊！专制=专门制造，民主制=人人有份，最理想的模式是创造财富时 ...
没那么简单，earmark的能力跟议员的权势有关，有人的地方就有江湖，总会出现一些呼风唤雨的大佬，而且议院里有各种委员会，负责财政啊军工啊的委员和负责科技太空的委员权势自然差老了。象肯尼迪参议员这种大佬，上百亿的项目都可以往自己家里搬，而新选上的议员就没这种好事了。所以就是个赤裸裸的利益交换的问题，“民主分配”嘛自然是谈不上滴。
楼主对MD的权钱交易比较了解，这不是红果果的打国内JY的臭脸吗
我以前好听说过MD中央对地方的控制主要就是靠拨款
谢谢科普，哈哈哈，原来还有这么一出
hebulai 发表于 2012-6-21 08:02 ![]()
谢谢科普，学到知识啦。权力寻租现象中外皆同啊，无关体制。
这还好啦，最狠的美国高院判决后出现的Super PAC，以前对企业捐款有诸多限制，Super PAC出现后企业只要不和候选人接触，可以随便往里捐钱。表面上不接触还不容易，罗姆尼的Super PAC管家就是他的前助手，呵呵。这次大选就是就是拼捐款了，以前好歹是犹抱琵琶，现在就是赤裸裸的金钱政治⋯⋯
谢谢科普，学到知识啦。权力寻租现象中外皆同啊，无关体制。
这还好啦，最狠的美国高院判决后出现的Super PAC，以前对企业捐款有诸多限制，Super PAC出现后企业只要不和候选人接触，可以随便往里捐钱。表面上不接触还不容易，罗姆尼的Super PAC管家就是他的前助手，呵呵。这次大选就是就是拼捐款了，以前好歹是犹抱琵琶，现在就是赤裸裸的金钱政治⋯⋯
四个字——依法腐败……
这这这。。。。，这如果拿了企业捐的钱当选了，还不得老老实实地为财团服务。。。。否则，就如同肯迪尼下场？
各家都一样，只不过一家是合法的，一家叫贪污腐败以权谋私
日全食 发表于 2012-6-21 09:33
四个字——依法腐败……
要说依法腐败，著名的游说公司还没提哪。游说公司就是替人游说议员的，影响立法和财政拨款滴。想游说议员，自然还是找老熟人容易，比如前高官前议员一类的。对议员收入有限制，可对这些老熟人收入可没限制，钱哗哗的拿。说个例子吧，前共和党总统候选人金里奇，这位是克林顿时代的大佬，众议院议长，因为莱温斯基一案对克林顿逼得太紧，不招人待见，就下台了。下台以后呢，工作就是拿着两房的钱游说议员，钱没少赚，去年还开着自己的豪华游艇到希腊转了一圈，美曰其名为考察希腊金融危机，呵呵。
日全食 发表于 2012-6-21 09:33
四个字——依法腐败……
要说依法腐败，著名的游说公司还没提哪。游说公司就是替人游说议员的，影响立法和财政拨款滴。想游说议员，自然还是找老熟人容易，比如前高官前议员一类的。对议员收入有限制，可对这些老熟人收入可没限制，钱哗哗的拿。说个例子吧，前共和党总统候选人金里奇，这位是克林顿时代的大佬，众议院议长，因为莱温斯基一案对克林顿逼得太紧，不招人待见，就下台了。下台以后呢，工作就是拿着两房的钱游说议员，钱没少赚，去年还开着自己的豪华游艇到希腊转了一圈，美曰其名为考察希腊金融危机，呵呵。
美国的民主本来就是个美好的假命题。
在他这样的，政治献金体系下，经济上的不平等必然会转变成政治上的不平等。总统候选人除了变成财阀的代言人之外没有出路。国内很多人都不愿意正视这点。
当然美国的有些制度还是值得我们学习的。比如权力的制衡对控制腐败有一定作用。
在他这样的，政治献金体系下，经济上的不平等必然会转变成政治上的不平等。总统候选人除了变成财阀的代言人之外没有出路。国内很多人都不愿意正视这点。
当然美国的有些制度还是值得我们学习的。比如权力的制衡对控制腐败有一定作用。
popcorn234 发表于 2012-6-21 08:38 ![]()
没那么简单，earmark的能力跟议员的权势有关，有人的地方就有江湖，总会出现一些呼风唤雨的大佬，而且议院 ...
内幕人事啊 期待更多爆料
没那么简单，earmark的能力跟议员的权势有关，有人的地方就有江湖，总会出现一些呼风唤雨的大佬，而且议院 ...
内幕人事啊 期待更多爆料
popcorn234 发表于 2012-6-21 09:46 ![]()
要说依法腐败，著名的游说公司还没提哪。游说公司就是替人游说议员的，影响立法和财政拨款滴。想游说议 ...
前段时间沸沸扬扬的 pizza 蔬菜 就是游说公司的著名实例啊
要说依法腐败，著名的游说公司还没提哪。游说公司就是替人游说议员的，影响立法和财政拨款滴。想游说议 ...
前段时间沸沸扬扬的 pizza 蔬菜 就是游说公司的著名实例啊
一架F22居然要45个州提供生产零件！哪天MD分裂了的话，比前苏联还要悲催100倍，意味着大型、重型武器装备生产都会一锅揣啊，哈哈。
原来如此啊
谢谢科普啊
谢谢科普啊
pingle23428 发表于 2012-6-21 09:57 ![]()
内幕人事啊 期待更多爆料
根本就不是啥内幕，对美国政治稍微有点了解就知道这一套，不过中国媒体从来不提，也不知道那么多中央媒体驻美记者都在干啥。
内幕人事啊 期待更多爆料
根本就不是啥内幕，对美国政治稍微有点了解就知道这一套，不过中国媒体从来不提，也不知道那么多中央媒体驻美记者都在干啥。
thinuphia 发表于 2012-6-21 09:52 ![]()
美国的民主本来就是个美好的假命题。
在他这样的，政治献金体系下，经济上的不平等必然会转变成政治上的不 ...
初中时候，对驴象之争不明就里。
高中时候，对驴象之争深感认同。
大学时候，对驴象之争表示崇拜。
现在………… 感情就是几个领导分肉吃打起来了！关我P事。
美国的民主本来就是个美好的假命题。
在他这样的，政治献金体系下，经济上的不平等必然会转变成政治上的不 ...
初中时候，对驴象之争不明就里。
高中时候，对驴象之争深感认同。
大学时候，对驴象之争表示崇拜。
现在………… 感情就是几个领导分肉吃打起来了！关我P事。
我本人现在就在美国,我以前所在的公司就靠众议员Maurice Hinchey的Earmark (也叫Pork barrel) 拿到钱以后公司让我使劲花钱,由于所有的花费和所用的时间都要登记,并且面临核查,所以做假困难而且风险大,事实上为了做好这个项目 我需要2-3人手,大概需要30万美元,但是因为政府的钱不能到时花不完,所以我们挖空心思去花钱,公司也给我配了6个助手. 例如我们当初拿项目时说需要做208个样品,但是我发现按照正常手续一年只能做70-80样品并且能够达到非常好的科研业绩,但是每个月的花费上不去,所以我准备5个样品,然后每个样品分成3份,这样一下就达到15份(这实际上是一种欺骗行为,不过核查员是政府从外面会计公司临时雇佣的 他们对于复杂的高科技材料一窍不通,无法理解这些诀窍), 不过难题又来了,这些样品全部需要分析,(每个样品分析可以花掉800美元,公司可以在账户上报掉1280美元,60%的overhead,你可以看到我们花的越多,我们公司就可以拿的越多,直到上限) 外面的人分析完了以后我还需要花时间去处理实验数据,由于80%的样品完全是垃圾,所以我把数据拷到电脑上后玩电脑自己炒股,一方面装模作样,然后把所花的时间全部登记到政府账户上,我的rate是一小时160美元.
我们登记时间用的是这个网站,他们有专门面对某家特定公司的网页 (Tenrox hostings)
实事求是的说美国政府的所有规定理论上都是为了节约纳税人的钱,但是操作起来条条框框的东西太多,往往是规定的越严,浪费的越多. 原来的老板有好朋友在国防部, 朋友告诉老板说那些军火项目油水特别多.
以上说的东西我发誓全部是真的!!!!
我们登记时间用的是这个网站,他们有专门面对某家特定公司的网页 (Tenrox hostings)
实事求是的说美国政府的所有规定理论上都是为了节约纳税人的钱,但是操作起来条条框框的东西太多,往往是规定的越严,浪费的越多. 原来的老板有好朋友在国防部, 朋友告诉老板说那些军火项目油水特别多.
以上说的东西我发誓全部是真的!!!!
limno2 发表于 2012-7-31 02:29 ![]()
我本人现在就在美国,我以前所在的公司就靠众议员Maurice Hinchey的Earmark (也叫Pork barrel) 拿到钱以后 ...
这个不难理解，只是程度不同罢了。国内也会把报销额度用足的，各种票据。。。
我本人现在就在美国,我以前所在的公司就靠众议员Maurice Hinchey的Earmark (也叫Pork barrel) 拿到钱以后 ...
这个不难理解，只是程度不同罢了。国内也会把报销额度用足的，各种票据。。。
这个帖子为什么没人关注？辛苦海外的网友们能够多用些事实科普这方面的东西。
我记得这两天天涯国观里有个帖子，是留学生们用亲身经历讲述英国的免费医疗制度，还有留美留澳同学过来讲他们在当地的公费就医情况，因为都是自己经历的，看起来非常有意思。对理解当前国内公费医疗制度，是个非常好的参照。
这种不带偏见、不预设立场、只说事实的帖子其实比较少见，却能够实实在在丰富我们的阅历。
我记得这两天天涯国观里有个帖子，是留学生们用亲身经历讲述英国的免费医疗制度，还有留美留澳同学过来讲他们在当地的公费就医情况，因为都是自己经历的，看起来非常有意思。对理解当前国内公费医疗制度，是个非常好的参照。
这种不带偏见、不预设立场、只说事实的帖子其实比较少见，却能够实实在在丰富我们的阅历。
当初老麦竞选时我还以为这老头子是和小树丛一路的右翼脑残货色,现在才知道原来老头子不简单,远见卓识了得,竟然一眼看出美国制造高成本的根源.这么看来幸亏老头子败给了奥黑,否则若让他上台,真能顺利推行废除earmark,必将极大提高美国制造的国际竞争力.
popcorn234 发表于 2012-6-21 08:38 ![]()
没那么简单，earmark的能力跟议员的权势有关，有人的地方就有江湖，总会出现一些呼风唤雨的大佬，而且议院 ...
于是小肯尼迪的飞机摔了:D
没那么简单，earmark的能力跟议员的权势有关，有人的地方就有江湖，总会出现一些呼风唤雨的大佬，而且议院 ...
于是小肯尼迪的飞机摔了:D
NBC报道美陆军不想在近期升级M1A式坦克 国会议员强迫美国陆军升级 因为11月的大选到了 国会议员要以创造工作机会来拉选票,后面的讨论中老百姓大骂这些浑蛋!!
我无法帖超连接 大家可以直接登录 Nbc news
The M1 Abrams tank has survived the Cold War, two conflicts in Iraq and a decade of war in Afghanistan. No wonder – it weighs as much as nine elephants and is fitted with a cannon capable of turning a building to rubble from two and a half miles away.
Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.
But now the machine finds itself a target in an unusual battle between the Defense Department and lawmakers who are the beneficiaries of large donations by its manufacturer.
The Pentagon, facing smaller budgets and looking towards a new global strategy, has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.
Advertise | AdChoices
Its proposal would idle a large factory in Lima, Ohio, as well as halt work at dozens of subcontractors in Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states.
Opposing the Pentagon’s plans is Abrams manufacturer General Dynamics, a nationwide employer that has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade. The tank’s supporters on Capitol Hill say they are desperate to save jobs in their districts and concerned about undermining America’s military capability.
So far, the contractor is winning the battle, after a well-organized campaign of lobbying and political donations involving the lawmakers on four key committees that will decide the tanks’ fate, according to an analysis of spending and lobbying records by the Center for Public Integrity.
Sharp spikes in the company’s donations – including a two-week period in 2011 when its employees and political action committee sent the lawmakers checks for their campaigns totaling nearly $50,000 – roughly coincided with five legislative milestones for the Abrams, including committee hearings and votes and the defense bill’s final passage last year.
After putting the tank money back in the budget then, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have again authorized it this year — $181 million in the House and $91 million in the Senate. If the company and its supporters prevail, the Army will refurbish what Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno described in a February hearing as “280 tanks that we simply do not need.”
The Center for Public Integrity
The cash and the tank. Click to enlarge image.
It already has more than 2,300 M1’s deployed with U.S. forces around the world and roughly 3,000 more sitting idle in long rows outdoors at a remote military base in California’s Sierra mountains.
The $3 billion at stake in this fight is not a large sum in Pentagon terms – it’s roughly what the building spends every 82 minutes. But the fight over the Abrams’ future, still unfolding, illuminates the major pressures that drive the current defense spending debate.
These include a Pentagon looking to free itself from legacy projects and modernize some of its combat strategy, a Congress looking to defend pet projects and a well-financed and politically savvy defense industry with deep ties to both, fighting tooth-and-nail to fend off even small reductions in the budget now devoted to the military – a total figure that presently composes about half of all discretionary spending.
Vulnerable to IEDs but impervious to Pentagon budgeteers
The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980, but first saw combat during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. That episode indicated that, on the battlefield at least, the only thing that could destroy an Abrams was another Abrams; only seven of the tanks deployed in the operation were destroyed, all by friendly fire.
In the last decade, however, as hundreds were deployed to Iraq and later Afghanistan, a key shortcoming became apparent: Their flat bottoms made the Abrams surprisingly vulnerableto improvised explosive devices (IEDs). As a result, the Abrams in Iraq ended up being used as “pillboxes”— high-priced armored bunkers used to protect ground.
“The M1 is an extraordinary vehicle, the best tank on the planet,” Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general now with the nonprofit National Security Network, said in an interview. Since the primary purpose of tanks is to kill other tanks, however, their utility in modern counterinsurgency warfare is limited, he added.
Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for the Army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, said that the Army can refurbish all 2,384 tanks it needs by the end of 2013. Freezing work after that, she said, will allow the Army to “focus its limited resources on the development of the next generation Abrams tank,” rather than building more of the same that “have exceeded their space, weight and power limits."
Advertise | AdChoices
Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing: “We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.”
But top Army officials have so far been unable to get political traction to kill the M1. Part of the reason is that General Dynamics and its well-connected lobbyists have been carrying a large checkbook and a sheaf of pro-tank talking points around on the Hill.
For example, when House Armed Services Committee member Hank Johnson, D-Ga., held a campaign fundraiser at a wood-panelled Capitol Hill steakhouse called the Caucus Room just before Christmas last year, someone from GD brought along a $1,500 check for his reelection campaign. Several months later, Johnson signed a letter to the Pentagon supporting funding for the tank. Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said the congressman has consistently supported the M-1 “because he doesn't think shutting down the production line is in the national interest."
The contribution was a tiny portion of the $5.3 million that GD’s political action committee and the company’s employees have invested in the current members of either the House and Senate Armed Services Committees or defense appropriations subcommittees since Jan. 2001, according to data on defense industry campaign contributions the Center for Public Integrity acquired from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
These are the committees that approve the Pentagon’s spending every year; without their support, the tank – or any other costly military program -- would be dead.
Kendell Pease, GD’s vice president for government relations and communications, said in an interview that the company – which produces submarines and radios for the military, as well as tanks -- makes donations to those lawmakers whose views are aligned with the firm’s interests. “We target our PAC money to those folks who support national security and the national defense of our country,” says Pease. “Most of them are on the four (key defense) committees.”
But Pease denies trying to time donations around key votes, saying that the company’s PAC typically gives money whenever members of Congress invite its representatives to fundraisers. “The timing of a donation is keyed by (members’) requests for funding,” he says, adding that personal donations by company employees are not under his control. He said the donations tend to be clumped together because lawmakers often hold fundraisers at the same time.
More cash at key milestones
During the current election cycle, General Dynamics’ political action committee and its employees have sent an average of about $7,000 a week to members of the four committees. But the week President Obama announced his defense budget plan in 2011, the donations spiked to more than $20,000, significantly higher than in any of the previous six weeks. A second spike of more than $20,000 in donations occurred in early March 2011, when Army budget hearings were being held.
At a March 9 hearing of the House subcommittee dealing with land forces, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, railed against the Army’s decision to freeze work on the Abrams. Since the start of 2001, Reyes has received $64,650 in GD donations, including $1,000 on March 10, the day after the hearing, according to the data. Reyes office did not return a request to comment; his overall campaign receipts in the current election cycle have been $1 million.
Another large spike occurred the first two weeks of May 2011, a period in which the House Armed Services Committee voted 60-1 for a budget bill containing money to continue work on the Abrams through 2013. Over this period, GD’s PAC and employees donated a total of $48,100 to members of the four committees, with almost $20,000 of that going directly to members of the House Armed Services Committee as they voted.
Advertise | AdChoices
During another two week period in September, in which the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense handed in its conference report and Congress rushed to pass a stopgap spending bill to keep the government open, the company sent $36,500 to members of the four committees — primarily the House Armed Services Committee, whose members got $31,500.
The final large spike in donations last year came the week of Dec. 11-17, when Congress made a final vote on the whole budget. During this week, GD’s donations to members of the four committees totaled $17,000.
Along with its checks, the company has been carrying around a message that a cutoff of tank manufacturing work in Lima will harm the nation’s “industrial base,” using what has become a favorite expression of alarm for military contractors facing cutbacks.
The workforce “is not like a light switch. You can’t just click it off, then walk away for three years, come back and click it on,” Pease said. Smaller suppliers who exclusively make parts for the Abrams could be shuttered if the Army’s spending stops, he said. GD has also accused the Army of underestimating the plant’s temporary shutdown costs, claiming that the government’s actual savings would be minimal.
To help bring its corporate viewpoint to lawmakers, General Dynamics has spent at least $84 million over the past 11 years on lobbyists, according to Senate Office of Public Records lobbying data acquired from the Center for Responsive Politics. Just in the last year and a half, the firm — which draws nearly three-quarters of its revenues from public tax dollars in the form of federal contracts — has spent at least $13.5 million on more than 130 individual advocates, who pressed Congress to fund a variety of military and non-military programs at the firm.
While lobbyists often do not name their causes, those working for GD that specifically listed the Abrams tank, along with other topics, reported earning at least $550,000 from 2011 to the first quarter of 2012, according to the data. Pease described the lobbying efforts as “education… Shame on us if we don’t go and tell them (Congress) our side, because the Army is doing the same thing as we’re doing, having just as many meetings as we are.”
Relying on special contacts
In addition to tapping its in-house team, the company also hired outside firms to help sway lawmakers’ votes, which in turn assigned the General Dynamics account to former congressional staff tightly connected to committee members — part of the “revolving door” phenomenon now common among veterans of both political parties.
GD paid the Podesta Group nearly $1.7 million since 2009 to lobby on the defense appropriations and authorizations bills, according to lobbying disclosure forms. Among the more than 20 Podesta lobbyists assigned to the account was Josh Holly, communications director for the House Committee on Armed Services under Republican leadership for six years.
According to Holly’s bio on the Podesta website, he worked directly with Republican Buck McKeon of California, its current chairman. McKeon is a major recipient of GD campaign donations, garnering $68,000 from GD’s PAC and employees since the start of 2001 — with $56,000 of that coming just since 2009, when he became the committee’s top Republican. Holly did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking his comment and committee spokesman Claude Chafin said McKeon has consistently argued that it is fiscally smarter to keep the Abrams work going than to stop it.
Advertise | AdChoices
Podesta also assigned the GD account to two former House Appropriations Committee aides. One of them, Jim Dyer, confirmed that he lobbied on the tank this year, but directed other questions to General Dynamics. GD also hired firms that assigned its account to six other lobbyists who worked for the relevant committees and to a former Pentagon liaison to Congress.
Click here to sign up to receive our Top News email each day.
Pease said that when working with outside firms, he lets them pick the specific lobbyists on the account. But when picking the firms, “you always look for those people who can get the job done,” he says, referring to his approach as using a rifle rather than a shotgun. The company hires “a lot of individuals who understand our message, and how to deliver the message, so we can educate the right people, so they can understand our side of the equation.”
The company’s efforts so far have had great success. In April, 111 House Republicans joined with 62 House Democrats in a letter to Secretary Panetta decrying the decision to freeze work on the tanks. Less than a quarter were from Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania — the rust belt states with small subcontractors that would be directly impacted by a halt to Abrams work.
Of the 173 signers, 137 received contributions totaling more than $2 million from GD since 2001. Giving to Republicans and Democrats was split in half, with Republicans receiving about 51 percent of contributions, and Democrats 49 percent. More than half of the Armed Services committee and defense appropriations subcommittee members signed, effectively telgraphing the outcome of their deliberations.
The first signature was from Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., whose district includes the Detroit suburb of Sterling Heights, the location of the headquarters for General Dynamics Land Systems. Rep. Levin’s brother is Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin, the powerful head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Levin has received $46,200 from General Dynamics since 2001; his brother has received $43,000.
In a written statement, Rep. Levin said he wants to protect the Abrams because it is of “vital importance to more than 60 local companies” in Michigan and the difficulty of restarting tank production after a hiatus. Rep. Levin’s spokesman Josh Drobnyk says Levin has not conferred with his brother on the issue but confirms that representatives from GDLS contacted the congressman’s office about the Abrams.
Sen. Levin’s spokeswoman Tara Andringa said that “based on information on the M1 tank program from the Army, from contractors, and from independent analysts,” the senator supported the funds for the Abrams as being in “the best interests of U.S. security and protecting taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.”
Both this year and last year, the funds were added to the President’s proposed budget without a specific recorded vote, in what independent experts have termed an earmark — money directed by members of Congress to a pet project that often benefits their district. Earmarks were supposed to have been banned after the 2010 election, but lawmakers have decided that when multiple members favor adding funds – rather than just one lawmaker – it is not formally an earmark.
So far, there has been a great silence on the Abrams funding issue from congressional deficit hawks. Rep. Jim Jordan, who represents the Ohio district where the Lima plant is located and has received $31,000 for his campaigns from General Dynamics’ leadership PAC and employees, said he is now optimistic that the Abrams money will make it safely through the Senate.
Advertise | AdChoices
If it does, the fight still might not be over. The White House, in its May 15 responseto the House budget, objected to the “unrequested authorization” of funds for the Abrams during a “fiscally-constrained environment.” The administration did not specifically threaten a veto over the issue but said that if too many unrequested projects impeded “the ability of the administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources,” senior advisors will recommend the president veto the bill.
我无法帖超连接 大家可以直接登录 Nbc news
The M1 Abrams tank has survived the Cold War, two conflicts in Iraq and a decade of war in Afghanistan. No wonder – it weighs as much as nine elephants and is fitted with a cannon capable of turning a building to rubble from two and a half miles away.
Follow Open Channel on Twitter and Facebook.
But now the machine finds itself a target in an unusual battle between the Defense Department and lawmakers who are the beneficiaries of large donations by its manufacturer.
The Pentagon, facing smaller budgets and looking towards a new global strategy, has decided it wants to save as much as $3 billion by freezing refurbishment of the M1 from 2014 to 2017, so it can redesign the hulking, clanking vehicle from top to bottom.
Advertise | AdChoices
Its proposal would idle a large factory in Lima, Ohio, as well as halt work at dozens of subcontractors in Pennsylvania, Michigan and other states.
Opposing the Pentagon’s plans is Abrams manufacturer General Dynamics, a nationwide employer that has pumped millions of dollars into congressional elections over the last decade. The tank’s supporters on Capitol Hill say they are desperate to save jobs in their districts and concerned about undermining America’s military capability.
So far, the contractor is winning the battle, after a well-organized campaign of lobbying and political donations involving the lawmakers on four key committees that will decide the tanks’ fate, according to an analysis of spending and lobbying records by the Center for Public Integrity.
Sharp spikes in the company’s donations – including a two-week period in 2011 when its employees and political action committee sent the lawmakers checks for their campaigns totaling nearly $50,000 – roughly coincided with five legislative milestones for the Abrams, including committee hearings and votes and the defense bill’s final passage last year.
After putting the tank money back in the budget then, both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have again authorized it this year — $181 million in the House and $91 million in the Senate. If the company and its supporters prevail, the Army will refurbish what Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno described in a February hearing as “280 tanks that we simply do not need.”
The Center for Public Integrity
The cash and the tank. Click to enlarge image.
It already has more than 2,300 M1’s deployed with U.S. forces around the world and roughly 3,000 more sitting idle in long rows outdoors at a remote military base in California’s Sierra mountains.
The $3 billion at stake in this fight is not a large sum in Pentagon terms – it’s roughly what the building spends every 82 minutes. But the fight over the Abrams’ future, still unfolding, illuminates the major pressures that drive the current defense spending debate.
These include a Pentagon looking to free itself from legacy projects and modernize some of its combat strategy, a Congress looking to defend pet projects and a well-financed and politically savvy defense industry with deep ties to both, fighting tooth-and-nail to fend off even small reductions in the budget now devoted to the military – a total figure that presently composes about half of all discretionary spending.
Vulnerable to IEDs but impervious to Pentagon budgeteers
The M1 Abrams entered service in 1980, but first saw combat during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. That episode indicated that, on the battlefield at least, the only thing that could destroy an Abrams was another Abrams; only seven of the tanks deployed in the operation were destroyed, all by friendly fire.
In the last decade, however, as hundreds were deployed to Iraq and later Afghanistan, a key shortcoming became apparent: Their flat bottoms made the Abrams surprisingly vulnerableto improvised explosive devices (IEDs). As a result, the Abrams in Iraq ended up being used as “pillboxes”— high-priced armored bunkers used to protect ground.
“The M1 is an extraordinary vehicle, the best tank on the planet,” Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general now with the nonprofit National Security Network, said in an interview. Since the primary purpose of tanks is to kill other tanks, however, their utility in modern counterinsurgency warfare is limited, he added.
Ashley Givens, a spokeswoman for the Army’s Program Executive Office for Ground Combat Systems, said that the Army can refurbish all 2,384 tanks it needs by the end of 2013. Freezing work after that, she said, will allow the Army to “focus its limited resources on the development of the next generation Abrams tank,” rather than building more of the same that “have exceeded their space, weight and power limits."
Advertise | AdChoices
Warfare has changed, Odierno explained while discussing the Army’s new strategy at the February hearing: “We don’t believe we’ll ever see a straight conventional conflict again in the future.”
But top Army officials have so far been unable to get political traction to kill the M1. Part of the reason is that General Dynamics and its well-connected lobbyists have been carrying a large checkbook and a sheaf of pro-tank talking points around on the Hill.
For example, when House Armed Services Committee member Hank Johnson, D-Ga., held a campaign fundraiser at a wood-panelled Capitol Hill steakhouse called the Caucus Room just before Christmas last year, someone from GD brought along a $1,500 check for his reelection campaign. Several months later, Johnson signed a letter to the Pentagon supporting funding for the tank. Johnson spokesman Andy Phelan said the congressman has consistently supported the M-1 “because he doesn't think shutting down the production line is in the national interest."
The contribution was a tiny portion of the $5.3 million that GD’s political action committee and the company’s employees have invested in the current members of either the House and Senate Armed Services Committees or defense appropriations subcommittees since Jan. 2001, according to data on defense industry campaign contributions the Center for Public Integrity acquired from the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.
These are the committees that approve the Pentagon’s spending every year; without their support, the tank – or any other costly military program -- would be dead.
Kendell Pease, GD’s vice president for government relations and communications, said in an interview that the company – which produces submarines and radios for the military, as well as tanks -- makes donations to those lawmakers whose views are aligned with the firm’s interests. “We target our PAC money to those folks who support national security and the national defense of our country,” says Pease. “Most of them are on the four (key defense) committees.”
But Pease denies trying to time donations around key votes, saying that the company’s PAC typically gives money whenever members of Congress invite its representatives to fundraisers. “The timing of a donation is keyed by (members’) requests for funding,” he says, adding that personal donations by company employees are not under his control. He said the donations tend to be clumped together because lawmakers often hold fundraisers at the same time.
More cash at key milestones
During the current election cycle, General Dynamics’ political action committee and its employees have sent an average of about $7,000 a week to members of the four committees. But the week President Obama announced his defense budget plan in 2011, the donations spiked to more than $20,000, significantly higher than in any of the previous six weeks. A second spike of more than $20,000 in donations occurred in early March 2011, when Army budget hearings were being held.
At a March 9 hearing of the House subcommittee dealing with land forces, Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, railed against the Army’s decision to freeze work on the Abrams. Since the start of 2001, Reyes has received $64,650 in GD donations, including $1,000 on March 10, the day after the hearing, according to the data. Reyes office did not return a request to comment; his overall campaign receipts in the current election cycle have been $1 million.
Another large spike occurred the first two weeks of May 2011, a period in which the House Armed Services Committee voted 60-1 for a budget bill containing money to continue work on the Abrams through 2013. Over this period, GD’s PAC and employees donated a total of $48,100 to members of the four committees, with almost $20,000 of that going directly to members of the House Armed Services Committee as they voted.
Advertise | AdChoices
During another two week period in September, in which the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense handed in its conference report and Congress rushed to pass a stopgap spending bill to keep the government open, the company sent $36,500 to members of the four committees — primarily the House Armed Services Committee, whose members got $31,500.
The final large spike in donations last year came the week of Dec. 11-17, when Congress made a final vote on the whole budget. During this week, GD’s donations to members of the four committees totaled $17,000.
Along with its checks, the company has been carrying around a message that a cutoff of tank manufacturing work in Lima will harm the nation’s “industrial base,” using what has become a favorite expression of alarm for military contractors facing cutbacks.
The workforce “is not like a light switch. You can’t just click it off, then walk away for three years, come back and click it on,” Pease said. Smaller suppliers who exclusively make parts for the Abrams could be shuttered if the Army’s spending stops, he said. GD has also accused the Army of underestimating the plant’s temporary shutdown costs, claiming that the government’s actual savings would be minimal.
To help bring its corporate viewpoint to lawmakers, General Dynamics has spent at least $84 million over the past 11 years on lobbyists, according to Senate Office of Public Records lobbying data acquired from the Center for Responsive Politics. Just in the last year and a half, the firm — which draws nearly three-quarters of its revenues from public tax dollars in the form of federal contracts — has spent at least $13.5 million on more than 130 individual advocates, who pressed Congress to fund a variety of military and non-military programs at the firm.
While lobbyists often do not name their causes, those working for GD that specifically listed the Abrams tank, along with other topics, reported earning at least $550,000 from 2011 to the first quarter of 2012, according to the data. Pease described the lobbying efforts as “education… Shame on us if we don’t go and tell them (Congress) our side, because the Army is doing the same thing as we’re doing, having just as many meetings as we are.”
Relying on special contacts
In addition to tapping its in-house team, the company also hired outside firms to help sway lawmakers’ votes, which in turn assigned the General Dynamics account to former congressional staff tightly connected to committee members — part of the “revolving door” phenomenon now common among veterans of both political parties.
GD paid the Podesta Group nearly $1.7 million since 2009 to lobby on the defense appropriations and authorizations bills, according to lobbying disclosure forms. Among the more than 20 Podesta lobbyists assigned to the account was Josh Holly, communications director for the House Committee on Armed Services under Republican leadership for six years.
According to Holly’s bio on the Podesta website, he worked directly with Republican Buck McKeon of California, its current chairman. McKeon is a major recipient of GD campaign donations, garnering $68,000 from GD’s PAC and employees since the start of 2001 — with $56,000 of that coming just since 2009, when he became the committee’s top Republican. Holly did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking his comment and committee spokesman Claude Chafin said McKeon has consistently argued that it is fiscally smarter to keep the Abrams work going than to stop it.
Advertise | AdChoices
Podesta also assigned the GD account to two former House Appropriations Committee aides. One of them, Jim Dyer, confirmed that he lobbied on the tank this year, but directed other questions to General Dynamics. GD also hired firms that assigned its account to six other lobbyists who worked for the relevant committees and to a former Pentagon liaison to Congress.
Click here to sign up to receive our Top News email each day.
Pease said that when working with outside firms, he lets them pick the specific lobbyists on the account. But when picking the firms, “you always look for those people who can get the job done,” he says, referring to his approach as using a rifle rather than a shotgun. The company hires “a lot of individuals who understand our message, and how to deliver the message, so we can educate the right people, so they can understand our side of the equation.”
The company’s efforts so far have had great success. In April, 111 House Republicans joined with 62 House Democrats in a letter to Secretary Panetta decrying the decision to freeze work on the tanks. Less than a quarter were from Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania — the rust belt states with small subcontractors that would be directly impacted by a halt to Abrams work.
Of the 173 signers, 137 received contributions totaling more than $2 million from GD since 2001. Giving to Republicans and Democrats was split in half, with Republicans receiving about 51 percent of contributions, and Democrats 49 percent. More than half of the Armed Services committee and defense appropriations subcommittee members signed, effectively telgraphing the outcome of their deliberations.
The first signature was from Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., whose district includes the Detroit suburb of Sterling Heights, the location of the headquarters for General Dynamics Land Systems. Rep. Levin’s brother is Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin, the powerful head of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Sen. Levin has received $46,200 from General Dynamics since 2001; his brother has received $43,000.
In a written statement, Rep. Levin said he wants to protect the Abrams because it is of “vital importance to more than 60 local companies” in Michigan and the difficulty of restarting tank production after a hiatus. Rep. Levin’s spokesman Josh Drobnyk says Levin has not conferred with his brother on the issue but confirms that representatives from GDLS contacted the congressman’s office about the Abrams.
Sen. Levin’s spokeswoman Tara Andringa said that “based on information on the M1 tank program from the Army, from contractors, and from independent analysts,” the senator supported the funds for the Abrams as being in “the best interests of U.S. security and protecting taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars.”
Both this year and last year, the funds were added to the President’s proposed budget without a specific recorded vote, in what independent experts have termed an earmark — money directed by members of Congress to a pet project that often benefits their district. Earmarks were supposed to have been banned after the 2010 election, but lawmakers have decided that when multiple members favor adding funds – rather than just one lawmaker – it is not formally an earmark.
So far, there has been a great silence on the Abrams funding issue from congressional deficit hawks. Rep. Jim Jordan, who represents the Ohio district where the Lima plant is located and has received $31,000 for his campaigns from General Dynamics’ leadership PAC and employees, said he is now optimistic that the Abrams money will make it safely through the Senate.
Advertise | AdChoices
If it does, the fight still might not be over. The White House, in its May 15 responseto the House budget, objected to the “unrequested authorization” of funds for the Abrams during a “fiscally-constrained environment.” The administration did not specifically threaten a veto over the issue but said that if too many unrequested projects impeded “the ability of the administration to execute the new defense strategy and to properly direct scarce resources,” senior advisors will recommend the president veto the bill.
谢谢楼主科普了。每个都有国家都要奇葩事啊。
是很难了解其中的门道
当年肯尼迪活着的时候奥巴马可是把他当成爷爷，整个国会威望也无人可比。结果人一死，席位给了共和党，第二发动机是被奥巴马亲手弄掉的
xjw6282483 发表于 2012-7-31 05:23
是很难了解其中的门道
简单的解释就是，美国国会类似于我国的全国人大，国会议员就是来自各个省市的人大代表，不同的是，这些不同省份出身的人大代表有权批准或否决各种拨款提案。
于是每一份拨款提案就在这些人大代表的扯皮和妥协中或者通过或者夭折。而这种扯皮和妥协的结果，就是把一份份本来完整的拨款计划细分成了N多部分，然后几乎每个省的人大代表都替他的省份瓜分到一份，拿回他的省里做。
这样做，表面上的确是为当地省市增加了就业机会。但实际上，拿回去的这些细分后的拨款，大都是流向与该省国会议员有亲密关系的企业机构里了。国会议员在作出“政绩”，赢取民心的同时，又能为自己的家族企业，关系企业捞取，甚至可以说是骗取巨额国家拨款，自己又能显得很大公无私，清正廉洁，何乐而不为呢？
xjw6282483 发表于 2012-7-31 05:23
是很难了解其中的门道
简单的解释就是，美国国会类似于我国的全国人大，国会议员就是来自各个省市的人大代表，不同的是，这些不同省份出身的人大代表有权批准或否决各种拨款提案。
于是每一份拨款提案就在这些人大代表的扯皮和妥协中或者通过或者夭折。而这种扯皮和妥协的结果，就是把一份份本来完整的拨款计划细分成了N多部分，然后几乎每个省的人大代表都替他的省份瓜分到一份，拿回他的省里做。
这样做，表面上的确是为当地省市增加了就业机会。但实际上，拿回去的这些细分后的拨款，大都是流向与该省国会议员有亲密关系的企业机构里了。国会议员在作出“政绩”，赢取民心的同时，又能为自己的家族企业，关系企业捞取，甚至可以说是骗取巨额国家拨款，自己又能显得很大公无私，清正廉洁，何乐而不为呢？
好科普！支持！
菲丝 发表于 2012-6-21 08:16 ![]()
这种机制是追求政绩回报社会（选民）的必然啊！专制=专门制造，民主制=人人有份，最理想的模式是创造财富时 ...
那谁去创造财富？
这种机制是追求政绩回报社会（选民）的必然啊！专制=专门制造，民主制=人人有份，最理想的模式是创造财富时 ...
那谁去创造财富？
谢谢科普，学到知识啦。权力寻租现象中外皆同啊，无关体制。
是啊，有些公知们也开始承认这个观点了，主要是干爹不给力，连普通老百姓都知道西方政治体制猫腻众多，他们还能再美化啊。
是啊，有些公知们也开始承认这个观点了，主要是干爹不给力，连普通老百姓都知道西方政治体制猫腻众多，他们还能再美化啊。
根本就不是啥内幕，对美国政治稍微有点了解就知道这一套，不过中国媒体从来不提，也不知道那么多中央媒体 ...
是啊，只是略有耳闻，但像兄台这科普版的第一次见啊。
是啊，只是略有耳闻，但像兄台这科普版的第一次见啊。